So you can choose your interpretation of this. Either they had no idea who this guy was and what role he played in the government, or else we have deliberate intimidation of the democratically elected government. Either way, what we have here is an example of what happens when a government tolerates "some" torture.
This I agree with only if there is sufficient evidence, that can be backed up in a tribunal, that there is knowledge of an imminent threat. I know Nexxo will disagree on principal, but thats my view. In the case stated by the OP there appears to have been no justification for the interogation technique used. Funny how the oppressed become the oppressors!
I totally understand your point of view on this, but given how governmental and legal institutions work, I just think that would be the thin end of the wedge. Judging when torture is justified (or, more trickily, what constitutes torture) is not a responsibility I would entrust most people with; certainly not any government. Governments are by their nature powerful, and hence difficult to challenge (just look at what Bush is getting away with --and that is in a country with a strong culture of freedom, independence and democracy). So their power has to be strictly limited. Certain things, therefore, should just be off limits in principle. From a psychological perspective, not strange at all. An actor who plays but a single role, yet learns all the lines in the play. Someone who is in an abusive relationship, learns how to be the victim as well as the persecutor. Hence, some abuse victims go on to become abusers themselves. To complete the "drama triangle", besides the Victim and Persecutor we also have the Rescuer. Some victims can go the other way and become rescuers. But as the US has found in Iraq, the line between Rescuer and Persecutor/abuser is very thin indeed. At any time the dynamics can shift and the three actors in the play --Victim, Persecutor and Rescuer-- can suddenly switch roles. And before you know it, you wonder how you could have become the victim or the monster, when your intenstions were so sincere...
There is no proof that this palestinian official has been tortured at all. It's strange that this has just been announced after his pals in Hezbollah have been accused of war crimes against Israeli civillians, I wonder if this is an attempt to shift the attention from his terrorist friends?
I would be naive to rule that possibility out completely, but it would be equally naive to rule out the likelihood that the Israeli forces have been indulging themselves in getting a bit medieval on his ass, so to speak. After all, torture as a persuasive technique is being endorsed by the President of the US himself, no less.
